Future reliability like other Toyotas?
 

Heya, I am currently driving 1993 Toyota MR2 with 210000KM. No rust, no mechanical issue, no problem at all. 26 years old car, driving daily, still running like a champ.
What you guys believe, the twin can be same as like those 90's other toyotas?

I'd be looking more at other older Subarus for future reliability.

You have a 26 year old car with hardly any kilometers on it. It is not indicative of the normal life expectancy of a MR2 or any other Toyota. For every one that is still "running like a champ" there are several hundred that were worn out and turned into soup cans decades ago. If you get an 86/BRZ and put less that 10,000KMS a year on it while maintaining and storing it properly there is no reason to expect it not to last just as well.
If you actually drive the thing then yes, it will wear out. My car is driven over 50,000KMs a year and at this point has 40,000 more KMs than you 26 year old car. It has been totally reliable and other than wear expected for that distance is standing up well. I would however expect it will be a pile of dust in another 22 years. Durability will vary depending upon usage.

No, I would compare it to the reliability of Subarus. Since the car is mostly a Subaru.

It is technically, mostly a Subaru. And built with Subaru part-bin

Despite the Subaru DNA I would assume Toyota took extra steps to ensure Toyota levels of long term reliability?

Ultimately the engine is from Subaru. I think Toyota did the fuel system, but the engine is all Subaru, and arguably the main thing that has to last a long time to be considered reliable.

No.

I don't understand this line of thinking....

Subaru parts bin and Subaru built and all of a sudden because Toyota was involved in some way its going to be Toyota reliable?

It was the same thing with the Supra....Toyota somehow got involved with reengineering the existing BMW parts bin stuff that is used and somehow it'll become Toyota reliable instead of BMW hit or miss?

Toyota did not re-engineer their partners components and made them more reliable...…

The Subaru BRZ/86 is Subaru reliable (which in itself is pretty reliable)
And the Supra is BMW reliable (which I think for the current generation of product is pretty reliable)

Some 90s Toyotas were reliable, not all.

The Diff is Toyota, the Fuel injection is Toyota, the head unit (for FRS/86) is a Toyota

The sheet metal and other metals are probably the same supplier(s) that provides metal to many Japanese manufacturers.
Toyota owns part of Subaru.

The engine is high comp N/A, made first for this platform before they started using it in other applications. So no real history longer than 7 years to go by. You can't simply lump this engine design into the same reliability as other Subaru engine designs. 1-because Toyota had a hand in it (much more than the MKV). 2-because One engine family is not inherently as reliable as a totally different engine family. Toyota example: 7M vs 2JZ.

Transmission - so far reliable. People have only been killing transmissions from higher hp than it can handle.

What's more reliable, a Japan made Subaru or a US made Toyota?

So 15% of the car is from Toyota.

Not saying that the car is not reliable. what I am saying is that it is technically a Subaru, so people can't be expecting Camry-like reliability. And almost every 86 owner does not drive them like Camry drivers. The harder you drive the car, the more wear, and tear.

I had 15 BRZ and it was incredibly reliable. but Do I expect reliability like a Camry? absolutely not, I did a couple of track-days, autocross and regularly drive the car harder than regular-normal-commuter-camry-driver

I think it is a misconception regarding what "reliability" means: Some people evaluates the reliability based in how much negligent has been taking care of the car, using and abusing it without the minimal care, not even check the oil once in a while... well, if this is the case, guess what? the older the car, the "most reliable" will be...Why? because the functionality is way less complex, i.e. I have a 2001 Corolla for a winter beater and even is a beater, I keep it well maintain, so the cars works great, but another factor is that ONLY have 2 ECU's: the Air Bag & Engine ECU. Of course was originally well designed meaning that if you provide the normal care, the car will be ok. That is why hard to compare old vs. new cars... The more the "electronic nannies" & gadgets have, the more the chances to fail and as T-Coat mention: the more the use, the more the wear.


Another clarification I like to express is that the key in a reliable vehicle comes from the design of the parts/components, so when was said "What's more reliable, a Japan made Subaru or a US made Toyota?" I said both, because in both cases the design came from Japan, so has to follow the Japan specs. Don't matter where is made has to follow the "TMS" (Toyota Manufacturing System).Two of the more recognized "reliable" cars from Toyota The Camry and Corolla, are made in North America.


But in summary, my bet is that our "Toyobarus" will be reliable enough, as long as we take care of them, because are well designed.

I'd look less at Subaru vs Toyota measures and moreso of the fundamental design and the end product of that design. Arguing over who made what has always boiled down to juvenile semantic BS.

It's a boxer engine placed on a sports car that's naturally aspirated and RWD on a lightweight platform manufactured by Subaru, designed by both Toyota and Subaru. In general for the rest of the car, there's a parts list on this forum that shows like half the components being made by Toyota as well, but I can't seem to find that right now.

Based on the long term anecdotes of owners, the FA20s are miles better than the old EJs. However they generate a lot of heat, have had reported oil pressure weaknesses Within 1000 RPM of OEM redline. As stock they appear to have be slightly less able to be wrung out freely without concern than some other vehicles. Being a sports car however, subjects them to a lot of stresses that most other cars won't face. However for most to have lasted as long as they have now, alongside numerous FI applications suggests a generally feasible engine for both performance and regular usage. Throwing a rod appears to be the Achilles heel as a result of a weakness at a reduced oil pressure near redline combined with oil temps under sustained high RPM driving without adequate cooling measures.

It's worth noting that the FA20 design more or less made Subaru abandon the EJs in their lineup (to my knowledge) except for the STI.

Both transmission types are fairly reliable and similar in capacity for performance. The MT is a one off design strictly for this car, and appears to be less capable of holding additional power, but can be fixed? with the aftermarket. Both are currently lasting the duration of this car under stock to NA modded circumstances.

Pretty much everything else about the car has had no major, repeated points of failure. And that the manufacturing process has not resulted in any consistent issues as well.

My personal conclusion is that everything about the car will last as long as any old, well maintained car except for the engine which is slightly more fickle due to its inherent mechanical design. However, the issues discussed above only affect a small minority of drivers and are easily remedied with aftermarket oil cooling and or care of the engine.

Do you mean the Camry's with oil consumption and sticky dashboards? I hope not too.

parts are just parts. The FA20 square bore/stroke high comp DI N/A was made for this car first, was it not? The car designed and engineered as a joint effort and assembled in a Subaru plant. The design & engineering is more important than the part itself as design & engineering dictate how a part will be manufactured
I agree with you, design of the vehicle & components is the most important part of this and the twins have proven to be reliable so far. A lot of people are well above 100K miles as we speak with well running engines.

btw the Corolla is made both in Japan & US for this generation.


But you have to consider at least 4 scenarios and all in-between.
Great design--Great quality manufacturing (TPS Toyota Production System at it's best)
Great design--Poor quality manufacturing
Poor design--Great quality manufacturing
Poor design--Poor quality manufacturing

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles...0m/0bu/023000c


Great points. Engine & trans, arguably the most important parts were more or less began with this platform and while they have their issues, from what I've gathered, have been reliable to date.

Has anyone told you to expect Subaru reliability yet?

It's already had Subaru problems: bad tune, cam/vvt issues, oil leaks, oil burning, rattling interior, probably a few more I'm forgetting.

It should make it to 130k miles with little issue like most cars built in the last 30 years unless you get unlucky which people do, even with MR2's, no car is actually 100% reliable.

To add to this the definition of what "reliability" actually mean seams to have changed over the years. It used to mean does it start, run and stop like it should. Now leaky tail lights, squeaks from the trunk or chipped paint all are considered in the "reliability" category. People used to have Toyotas that were rotted out to the door handles but still ran fine and they said how reliable the car was. Now if the stitching on the seat isn't straight it will get a negative point for reliability from someplace.

DAMNIT Are you saying mine should die any second now?

That's a pretty low standard there. I wouldn't even consider a car I thought would only make it to 130K miles. (but I do get your point).

unless you live in the rust belt I don't see why it couldn't easily last at least a couple decades...plus, prefer the simplicity of a longitudinal FR car over one with a transverse mid engine..

:iono:

That was OPs criteria as that's how many miles are on their MR2

Most cars start developing expensive habits between 150k-200k from what I've seen, but I don't haven't to contend with snow.

All modern cars have too many "nanny systems" and anti pollution systems , that are just more things that are expensive to fix.
One thing that determines the life of any car , is how much money the owner is willing to pay for continuos repairs.

Yea, not much experience with Northern weather on cars, but the ones I've had tended more in the 200-250K range before they had what I would consider major, non-maintenance expenses. I've had 5 cars over the years in that range.

Very true. Pretty much any car can be kept running nearly forever if you are willing to spend money to do it. Cars that reach a million miles don't get there without a lot of non-maintenance parts replaced.

The newest piece of technology on my FR-S is the Bluetooth phone connection... Which was patented in 1989 and was finding it's way to consumer devices in the early '00s, the first Bluetooth headset was on shelves in 1999.

I don't think "most" cars develop serious issues even close to 150,000 miles. Most of the new cars I have owned have doubled that without serious issues and I do have to contend with snow.
Now, if we want to talk 80s or earlier cars then yes if you saw 150,000 miles without issue it was time to celebrate. Any cars built after the mid nineties seem to outlast the older ones to a great extent. No idea how it happened but the higher tech the cars got the longer they seem to last.

It depends on where you draw the line of 'serious issues' which I never said 'serious' if you look at my post, I said expensive issues, most people can not cover a $500 unexpected expense without going into debt for it and many cars require a service or parts replacement in that 150k-200k mile (240k-320k km) window that is near or above that line. For example: 2JZ timing belt/water pump service, K24 timing chain, replacing a catalytic converter (happened on our '93 Camry and our friends '99 Volvo), Honda Accords had this wonderful compliance bushing that likes to fail between 60k-90k miles, etc. Hell replacing the cam sprocket on an FRZ is $200 for the sprocket alone, easily >$200 for the labor and a known issue with this car. Throw out bearing? Oil seep out of the timing cover?

You have the income for quality mechanics (dealerships) to take care of your cars for the life of the vehicle and I'm guessing would consider a >$500 service over 150k miles (240k km) part of doing business. Not everyone would agree with you (see other post in this thread complaining about 'expensive anti-pollution systems' when a factory catalytic converter is ~$1k and lasts for at least 20 years so a whopping $5/month of service). How much did your throw out bearing replacement cost you (or would have if it wasn't covered)? I know I did it in my garage (hey my clutch pedal doesn't squeak anymore!) but I bet that's also a >$500 repair at a mechanic, some dealerships/mechanics have quoted >$1k for a clutch replacement on this car.


These cars are dipping towards $10k used, we're not dealing with people buying new cars and having disposable income to repair them as they need it anymore, we're into people who don't want to buy a Civic or Corolla and are looking at this for $12k-$14k sitting on the lot of the dealership hoping their parents/friends don't say "I told you so" when the thing is out of commission for a month because it spun a bearing due to over-application of sealant for the valve-spring recall and the dealership is blaming the owner trying to stick them for >$6k for an engine replacement while they're still making the ~$250/month payments on the thing.


tl;dr buy a V6 Camry

Anybody that can't afford $500 to repair a car should take a bus. As you pointed out even the most basic repairs are more than that. I probably spend almost $500 a year on windshield washer fluid (not joking I buy good stuff). I think that by setting such a low dollar amount that you have taken the "most car develop EXPENSIVE habits" to a different level. Yes what qualifies as "expensive" is subjective based on income but $500 will not even cover some maintenance tasks much less be considered an expensive repair in the larger scheme of things. Cars cost money to maintain. You can spend that money up front and do preventive maintenance or you can roll the dice and repair it if it breaks but in the end it costs the same. My chief dispute of your comment was the "MOST cars need expensive repairs at 150,000 miles" that is simply not a statement that can be substituted in any way. They may need it at 60K or they may need it at 600K.

Well maybe public transit wouldn't suck so much if we converted 40% of the US population to relying on public transit. (It's currently ~11% from what I could find)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/here...d-expense.html

And by the way, Canada is on the same page as the ol' US of A:

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/5...om-being-broke

Used cars would be a lot more affordable though...

You're right, I took it from the level of the top 10% of the 1st world population (of which you and @Dadhawk are) to being relevant to the majority of the first world population. Such as someone daily driving a 23 year old Toyota who does not want to worry about any issues whatsoever.

You're right, I took shortcuts in phrasing that sentiment so I'll be more accurate.

"I believe that most cars will incur expenses exceeding $500 between 150k-200k miles."

:cheers:

Yeah, I would consider a $500 repair on an old car to be nothing.

My 2003 Corolla with 142,500 miles needs a new power steering rack that will cost more than double that. (I passed on it for now, though the guy claims it will fail inspection in January because of the leak.)

I don't consider that to be anything out of the ordinary, just one of those things that happens. I don't know how you can avoid spending a lot on maintenance unless you do the work yourself (or buy a new car).

Not sure what top 10% of the population you are sticking me in....

My definition of reliable is probably different than most, I do agree on that. If I have a paid for car that is reliable enough so that repairs per year are substantially less than the cost of a new (to me) car, then I consider it reliable. As @Tcoat mentioned, if you can't afford a $500 (or even $1500) repair once or even twice a year on a car, you can't afford ANY car because more than likely you are paying more than that per year for a newer, "more reliable" car.

According to this it only takes a job of 100K or more annual salary to be considered in the top 10% in America. For a single household income.




That can't be right.....

The data is a bit old but unsurprisingly relatively unchanged to today. Here's a more recent Wall Street Journal piece:
https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

John Steinbeck


People vastly underestimate how fucked the majority is.

Statistically, it probably is correct, not sure that makes it right. You also have to consider this nugget...

OK, you got me there I guess. For what it's worth, I started in the bottom 10% and have worked for 40 years to get into the top 10%. Within the next 5 to 10 years, I'll start sliding back down the other way...

Jfc, that little personal quiz is eye opening if it's even slightly accurate.

According to the linked info I am in the top 2% of white, baby boomer, males that didn't finish high School.


https://i.redd.it/qhvz4udpfsk21.jpg

My wife is a school teacher, and her salary make her a 20%er according to this. So much for teachers being underpaid....

And the devil is in the details as it always is with statistics. This is based on "All figures count only those ages 16 and over who reported personal income greater than $0 in 2014."

At least the other chart excluded those that are probably working "casually for spending money".

Do I have to explain cost of living adjustments to you old man?

A 10% income nationally here is just above the 'low income' threshold.

Also when you retire you can switch to the wealth tab where assets are measured instead of income.

No, not at all you don't have to explain it to me. I guess my point is I think what people forget is most people start their work life in the low income bracket. Where you go from there is mostly in your control.